Quote:
Originally Posted by crimson
Ah, now I remember one more advantage of physical books over ebooks. Science proves that people read slower, less accurately and less comprehensively on screens than on paper.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...paper-screens/
http://lifehacker.com/5898644/read-a...mber-something
I really have to agree with both articles. I can recall details from physical books much better than ebooks. When I want to find one particular quote from a book I can remember which part of the book it was in (middle part, bottom-left) then flip through the pages to find it. I can't do the same on ebooks, and my ability to recall details from them is MUCH worse. |
The Scientific American article talks about reading in a computer monitor. This is different from reading on an e-reader. I didn't think I would like an e-reader, because I disliked reading from a computer monitor. When I tried an e-reader, I found it was nothing like reading from a monitor. One big difference is that I'm stuck in front of the monitor, so it's not a comfortable experience. With an e-reader, I can hold it and sit comfortably however I like. I must adapt to the monitor, while the e-reader adapts to me. The article claims that the size of books is an advantage for paper books. It's certainly not true for me - If I'm going to read War and Peace, I'd much rather read it on an e-reader than lug around a bulky, heavy tome of a paper book. Perhaps others really enjoy the feel and smell of paper books, but for me, a book is a book.